In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks » Lamdage22, posted by SLS on August 29, 2015, at 15:34:54

> > > > So, why cant we warn readers about risks?> > > > I don't know. Who is saying that we can't?> > Well?> > > Why does nobody feel obligated to do so?> > Because there is no obligation for anyone to do so. What precedent can you cite that such an obligation exists?> > Obviously, there is no obligation for doctors to do so, otherwise they all would. They don't. How do you feel about that? You are on a lot of drugs. Did your doctor inform you about any and all possible adverse events for each drug? If not, have you confronted him with the same vigor as you are confronting the good-hearted people here who are simply making suggestions and relating personal experiences in an effort to provide information? > > If you feel that the environment here is deleterious to your health, why not look for one in which all posters are obligated to provide the information regarding any and all adverse events that are possible with each drug mentioned? When you find such a website, it would be a great service to the posting community of Psycho-Babble if you were to provide a URL link to such a site.> > Let me know how it goes with your doctors when you confront them. Did your doctor inform you about Nardil and the possibility that it could precipitate psychosis? Do you really expect that people here should be held to a higher standard than what you hold your own doctors to? Why not help out. For each of the drugs you are currently taking, list any and all adverse events that they are each capable of as provided to you by your doctors. Of course, there is no obligation for you to do so, but I would like to see if they missed any.> > > - Scott

Friends, It is written here that there is no obligation for anyone here to warn readers about the risks of the adverse consequences that could befall the taker of these drugs advocated here as "medicines". Really? In defining who has any obligation, looking at the FDA rules for {advertising} of these drugs and the rules for {endorsement} of these drugs, the question here could be if Mr. Hsiung is giving {endorsement} to the drugs advocated by members to take for their real or imagined ills or is the member posting an {endorsement}. This brings up as to if there is an {advertisement} or a {testimonial} or and {endorsement} and by who? As to who would be in violation of any rule of the FDA, I think that anyone advocating these drugs as medicines, is giving an {endorsement} of the drugs that falls in the FDA regulations as to if there is a violation of their rules. I do not think that the posting member is violating the FDA rules, but the rules cover advertisements that IMHHHHO could have Mr. Hsiung as a advertiser of these drugs since he allows the advocating of the drugs as part of his promotion of what is supportive and what will be good for his community as a whole as he thinks. The use by him as {being *good*} could be thought to be an endorsement not only by him, but by psychiatry since he is a psychiatrist. And worse, a psychiatrist could know that people could be killed by these drugs and does not post a warning in posts that advocate to take the drug. And even worser, mothers trying to determine to drug their child or not could be seriously misled here to believe that the drugs are safer than they really are since a psychiatrist could appear by being silent to the posts that advocate taking the drugs as to posting a warning of the adverse consequences to taking the drugs. That could cause a mother to accept, and have serious misgivings about these drugs, what they think is a testimonial and endorsement by the psychiatrist which could result in the death of their child. Who will have their blood upon them?Lou

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks, posted by Lamdage22 on August 30, 2015, at 12:09:28

> How do i feel about doctors not telling the risks? I think it is Criminal.> > Every other speciality will tell you the risks. That is my experience.

Friends,> > What if the prescribing psychiatrist/doctor did tell of all the risks? What mother would allow their child to be drugged in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor?Louhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFfiL71yyME

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks, posted by Lamdage22 on August 27, 2015, at 4:21:26

> > It seems to me that people on psychobabble are pretty oblivious to the fact that there are risks with trying medication. That it is a gamble.> >

Really? I always felt most people on psychobabble were very well aware of the risks, and come here to discuss those risks in much more detail than they would be discussed at a typical doctor's appointment.

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks » Lamdage22, posted by herpills on September 2, 2015, at 23:32:49

> > I know for example that MAOI can kick off psychosis and that Metformin patients need to be monitored for kidney health.> > > > Why not post it??> > Well, we could require that every time a drug is mentioned, the complete prescribing information has to be included. Get ready for posts that are 5000 pages long. > > Friends, It is written here that when a drug is mentioned that the complete prescribing info has to be included and that would make posts here 5000 pages long. There is merit to that suggestion for this site and others to incorporate what the FDA requires, if anything, when a drug is promoted on these sites. But is not the administration of the sites those that could have the duty to do so? You see, when mothers read here, and it could be your mother, what are they led to believe about these drugs as to what they could do to their child? If the post promotes efficacy claims while failing to post any risks or leave out material facts, then mothers could be deceived into thinking that the drug is safer than it really is and result in the deaths of readers here thinking that because a psychiatrist allows the promotion of the drug without warning of the dangers, that the drug is safe to take. My idea to be in compliance with warning readers would be for Mr. Hsiung to be the one here to not allow readers to be misled about the safety of these drugs. I would like for him to intercede with warnings, not other posters.Lou

In reply to Lou's response-your mother » herpills, posted by Lou Pilder on September 3, 2015, at 10:05:01

> > > I know for example that MAOI can kick off psychosis and that Metformin patients need to be monitored for kidney health.> > > > > > Why not post it??> > > > Well, we could require that every time a drug is mentioned, the complete prescribing information has to be included. Get ready for posts that are 5000 pages long. > > > > Friends,> It is written here that when a drug is mentioned that the complete prescribing info has to be included and that would make posts here 5000 pages long.> There is merit to that suggestion for this site and others to incorporate what the FDA requires, if anything, when a drug is promoted on these sites. But is not the administration of the sites those that could have the duty to do so?> You see, when mothers read here, and it could be your mother, what are they led to believe about these drugs as to what they could do to their child? If the post promotes efficacy claims while failing to post any risks or leave out material facts, then mothers could be deceived into thinking that the drug is safer than it really is and result in the deaths of readers here thinking that because a psychiatrist allows the promotion of the drug without warning of the dangers, that the drug is safe to take.> My idea to be in compliance with warning readers would be for Mr. Hsiung to be the one here to not allow readers to be misled about the safety of these drugs. I would like for him to intercede with warnings, not other posters.> Lou> > Friends, Is the promotion of these drugs here an endorsement by Mr. Hsiung or an advertisement by psychiatry itself? If so, the FDA rules could be applicable here. And the promoter of the drug could be Mr. Hsiung , not the poster, for Mr. Hsiung allows the promotion and says that support takes precedence. But there are thousands killed by these drugs each month. If the FDA made this site compliant to their rules for promotion of these drugs, readers from this site could have a more-informed picture as to what these drugs can do to you. You can read it in the morning papers, hear it on the radio, drugs are sweeping the nation, the psychiatrists could really know. We need a good old case of compliance, to put the truth right back in our souls, we need a whole lot more of Hsiung and a lot less from the trolls.Lou>

In reply to Lou's response-your mother » herpills, posted by Lou Pilder on September 3, 2015, at 10:05:01

> You see, when mothers read here, and it could be your mother, what are they led to believe about these drugs as to what they could do to their child? If the post promotes efficacy claims while failing to post any risks or leave out material facts, then mothers could be deceived into thinking that the drug is safer than it really is and result in the deaths of readers here thinking that because a psychiatrist allows the promotion of the drug without warning of the dangers, that the drug is safe to take.>

I suggest you look up the definition of "deceived". Your use of that word is incorrect, therefore making your argument false, invalid, and wrong.

Nobody who posts here is responsible for the people that read the posts. That's how it works here, that's how it works on other websites.

and yet you continue to whine and complain...did you ever consider that this particular website will never meet your expectations?

Please consider giving up your arguments...you will NEVER get what you want here. Pleases stop making PBabble all about you.

I'm curious how many people have left this support group because of you.

In reply to Lou's response-ehy hole lot more, posted by Lou Pilder on September 3, 2015, at 17:12:23

> > > > Friends,> Is the promotion of these drugs here an endorsement by Mr. Hsiung or an advertisement by psychiatry itself? If so, the FDA rules could be applicable here. And the promoter of the drug could be Mr. Hsiung , not the poster, for Mr. Hsiung allows the promotion and says that support takes precedence. But there are thousands killed by these drugs each month. If the FDA made this site compliant to their rules for promotion of these drugs, readers from this site could have a more-informed picture as to what these drugs can do to you.> You can read it in the morning papers, hear it on the radio, drugs are sweeping the nation, the psychiatrists could really know. We need a good old case of compliance, to put the truth right back in our souls, we need a whole lot more of Hsiung and a lot less from the trolls.> Lou> > >

Promotion of anti-psychiatry is also allowed here...and yet you will continue to whine and complain that things aren't fair here, nothing is fair to you, blah blah blah....

In reply to Re: leave my mother out of this » Lou Pilder, posted by herpills on September 6, 2015, at 18:06:07

> > You see, when mothers read here, and it could be your mother, what are they led to believe about these drugs as to what they could do to their child? If the post promotes efficacy claims while failing to post any risks or leave out material facts, then mothers could be deceived into thinking that the drug is safer than it really is and result in the deaths of readers here thinking that because a psychiatrist allows the promotion of the drug without warning of the dangers, that the drug is safe to take.> >> > I suggest you look up the definition of "deceived". Your use of that word is incorrect, therefore making your argument false, invalid, and wrong. > > Nobody who posts here is responsible for the people that read the posts. That's how it works here, that's how it works on other websites. > > and yet you continue to whine and complain...did you ever consider that this particular website will never meet your expectations? > > Please consider giving up your arguments...you will NEVER get what you want here. Pleases stop making PBabble all about you. > > I'm curious how many people have left this support group because of you. > > Friends, It is written here,[...you (Lou) will NEVER get what yow want here...]. What I want is for readers to have life. I am not anti-psychiatry, I am anti-death. When readers see that death can be prevented here by adopting my ways to do so, then l will get want I want. Now you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.Lou

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-yukntalwazgetwhtyuwnt, posted by Lamdage22 on September 9, 2015, at 4:40:56

> I wonder why we cant get along on a agree to disagree basis. Pro and anti psychiatry discussions always get emotional and personal.> > I am not as frowned upon as Lou but it goes in the same direction

What consequences might you be promoting by not enumerating the risks of each of your recommendations - including the risks of non-treatment?

Might your recommendations be promoting death?

They could.

Does this sound familiar?

Do you like this kind of accusation? Do you like this kind of responsibility mandated by others for your freedom of speech?

I don't agree with much of what you have to say. However, I do not go out of my way to alert others of your promoting negative consequences without my providing a rationale, citing evidence appearing in medical literature, or challenging you to do so. You do, of course, have no obligation to respond to anything I post to you or about you.

I feel that you have attacked me personally in the past. I didn't like that. Please don't do that anymore.

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks, posted by Lamdage22 on September 9, 2015, at 7:08:19

> Point taken.

I hope we can respect each other enough to acknowledge the importance of what we both have to say. The claims of the accuracy of one's own conclusions are not as important as providing a dialog that might promote a further synthesis of valid ideas. Civility can be a pain in the @ss sometimes, but it usually produces better communication.

I truly hope that you find your healing - with or without drug treatment.

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks, posted by Lamdage22 on September 9, 2015, at 9:05:51

i like rapastinel and naurex from the sounds of it.

though i also liked Nardil from the sounds of it. The burnt child dreads the fire.

But i think Rapastinel sounds better than Nardil. They say it does not cause psychosis. They sure didnt say that about Nardil.

All my life i got by barely and i wanted to change that so much that i ignored the risks. It was always a fight for me.

For the meantime i kind of accepted that its a fight.

My passion golf is on ice because i have some dumb tendon inflammation. I have strategies to get over it but i dont know if they will work. Life can be disheartening sometimes.

Also, i think that most of you have never received the kind of social support that is available in germany so i can see how you have differing opinions on meds. This place i visited called "Herzogsägmühle" or "Herzogsaegmuehle" was awesome. No med changesat all, but a changed man! Not alll the way to remission, but far enough so that life is worth living again, which i didnt think was possible anymore.

People and support networks can have powerful effects. I tell you this because i hope that this can restore hope for some readers. From what i have seen it may be the missing piece to remission. I hope that through volunteering i can further expand socially.